| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Vision_
255 Posts
(17-15) x 6 = 12 game seconds i.e 12 / 1.4 = 8.5 seconds (real time) so i don t know exactly the other reason for an eventually bigger delay between HotS and LotV.. But in definitive there s about 10 seconds (maybe more..) which have disappeared after HotS in favor of Z And even nobody cares cause the game wasn t so good at this time, it will always be reminded as a treatise. | ||
|
ThunderJunk
United States440 Posts
Specifically, I think that Ravagers should require Lair and Hydras should be able to be made at Hatchery tech. I say this because Ravagers limit protoss and terran defensive options in the early game: Forcefield-based sentry builds are not viable anymore, and Terran NEEDS a high ground to defend the roach ravager allin so the tanks don't get biled down. This severely limits map design choices. Also, zerg can't really be aggressive at T1 if either T or P opens early air because they have no T1 AA besides the queen. WIth the newly buffed voidray, it seems like the right time to give zergs earlier access to hydras. Switching those two unit requirements around wouldn't change any of the zergling / baneling / muta strategies at all, which are a really fun part of the game - and what people seem to think is so good about TvZ in general. Also, non-range-upgraded lurkers would be available at earlier timings. We currently never get to see lurkers or hydras in small numbers in any matchup, and that's unfortunate. ___ Terran is in a great spot design-wise. I say this because TvT is an excellent and dynamic matchup. Protoss is in a great spot design-wise too. PvP has never been more interesting. TvP is problematic because a maxed-out protoss army is very dense, and generally has enough disruptors to force terran to retreat and take damage in the process. Just add +1 collision radius to the disruptor so lategame micro against deathballs is slightly less horrible. I think people would be amazed how much difference that would make in the matchup without affecting other matchups. | ||
|
Lexender
Mexico2577 Posts
On September 03 2020 23:50 Decendos wrote: NERF EVERYTHING!!! Clearly the game is in a horrible state right now. Completely unplayable as we can see here http://aligulac.com/misc/balance/ and in tournament distribution....lol. If anything blizz should try to buff underused units and upgrades on all races to make the game have more viable strats and unit comps. Balancewise its fine, its just that every race has too few backbone unit comps. http://aligulac.com/periods/275/ PvT and TvZ have about the same WR that PvZ had that unleashed the 2 patches that nerfed zerg. So I'm not sure your source back ups your point. | ||
|
Decendos
Germany1324 Posts
On September 11 2020 02:27 Lexender wrote: http://aligulac.com/periods/275/ PvT and TvZ have about the same WR that PvZ had that unleashed the 2 patches that nerfed zerg. So I'm not sure your source back ups your point. Really? One week as source? Guess next week will look completely different with the strong performance of zerg players in EU dreamhack qualifier. + Show Spoiler + all zergs out except the two best players in the world... | ||
|
Elentos
52871 Posts
On September 11 2020 03:55 Decendos wrote: Really? One week as source? Guess next week will look completely different with the strong performance of zerg players in EU dreamhack qualifier. + Show Spoiler + all zergs out except the two best players in the world... It's not really one week cause you can pretty clearly see from the link you had in your first post that PvT win rates have been 53-54% since June. And 53-54 is generally the range where people start to consider a match-up statistically imbalanced. Although player quality in the samples is extremely diverse so I wouldn't think of these winrates as more than a trend. | ||
|
darklycid
1490 Posts
On September 11 2020 03:55 Decendos wrote: Really? One week as source? Guess next week will look completely different with the strong performance of zerg players in EU dreamhack qualifier. + Show Spoiler + all zergs out except the two best players in the world... Yeah yeah it's only reynor and serral, meanwhie the zergs that are out did things like overdrone heavily vs commited adept attacks and stay on hydra lurker viper vs mass carrier ht, guess what if you do so obvious mistakes Zerg is not too strong. The problem lies within the races strenghts and tools at the level reynor/serral/dark/rogue are playing. | ||
|
Yoshi Kirishima
United States9392 Posts
Throwing some suggestions out for PvZ again. Lurkers and Vipers seem to be 2 units that are very strong in ZvP, while not being core units in ZvT. So I feel looking at these to help Protoss makes sense. First off, Lurkers seem very good vs Protoss, niche/bad vs Bio, and fine vs Mech. 1) What if Lurker base/bonus dps was adjusted to be less niche vs Bio, less powerful vs Protoss? And keep the same total damage per hit to keep its burst which is important for positioning, while slightly decreasing attack speed so it's less massable for big fights due to overkill? This would emphasize its positional strength. Currently Lurkers do 20+10 damage. What if it was reworked to 22+8 for example, and nerf attack speed by 10%. It now does the same initial burst damage, which is important for dissuading pushes and slowing movement. It does the same dps vs Bio, but now it does less dps vs Protoss. The slightly lower DPS also makes it less massable vs Protoss. I've seen Serral just mass an army of mostly Lurkers and a few Hydras, and just run at a Protoss army and burrow... pretty sure that is not how they're meant to be used. You could push these changes harder and make it like 24+6 and nerf attack speed by 10-15% if you want to make it even better vs Bio and even worse vs Protoss. The Lurker seems too good as a massable army unit vs Protoss, and wouldn't hurt making them more useful vs Bio, so I think this is the logical direction to go. Keep same damage per hit vs Armored, slightly buff base damage, and decrease attack speed a little. 2) What if Lurker HP was slightly nerfed to 180? This would have to be considered in tandem with reworking its attack. It feels pretty tanky right now, if it was slightly more fragile (while having the same or slightly better attack or burst strength) it would also help emphasize its identity as a positional zoning unit. Lower HP will mean it's still good at bursting down small forces quickly, and dissuading bigger armies. While if a big army is confident and wants to commit, it will have an easier time breaking a small Lurker position. Right now as Protoss, even if you catch Lurkers pushing forward and burrowing, even if you attack before they burrow it can wreck your army, and it's hard to snipe a few as a poke and back off. So making them slightly more glass cannon-y seems like a good direction. Lurkers in BW costed 125/125 and had 125 HP, now they are 150/150 and have 200 HP. More HP is important because damage density is higher in SC2, but maybe 180-190 is enough. 3) What if Lurker Den building isn't separate anymore and you have to morph Hydra Den into it? Yes it would mean you'd need to get both Hydra upgrades, as well as Lurker Den, and then also Lurker upgrades. It would be a lot. But isn't that OK for a Zerg? You don't need to get all those upgrades at once, it's Zergy to have lots of evolution choices and pick the ones you want (I know it's balanced such that you want all of them, but still). If you want to upgrade Hydras fast and also get Lurker tech, you could just build 2 Hydra Dens and have 1 upgrade while the other morphs into Lurker Den. If you want to save money you would decide between upgrading Hydras or just upgrade to Lurker Den for Lurkers. This could slow down Lurker tech a bit which could help vs Protoss. So many games I see Zerg is able to get Viper + Lurker while Protoss still only has Colossus/Disruptor tech and no HTs, and the Zerg just wins due to that. On September 11 2020 01:35 ThunderJunk wrote: I actually kind of hold the opposite view. I think that large changes to Zerg are needed, and the matchups should be rebalanced around that. Specifically, I think that Ravagers should require Lair and Hydras should be able to be made at Hatchery tech. I say this because Ravagers limit protoss and terran defensive options in the early game: Forcefield-based sentry builds are not viable anymore, and Terran NEEDS a high ground to defend the roach ravager allin so the tanks don't get biled down. This severely limits map design choices. Also, zerg can't really be aggressive at T1 if either T or P opens early air because they have no T1 AA besides the queen. WIth the newly buffed voidray, it seems like the right time to give zergs earlier access to hydras. Switching those two unit requirements around wouldn't change any of the zergling / baneling / muta strategies at all, which are a really fun part of the game - and what people seem to think is so good about TvZ in general. Also, non-range-upgraded lurkers would be available at earlier timings. We currently never get to see lurkers or hydras in small numbers in any matchup, and that's unfortunate. ___ Terran is in a great spot design-wise. I say this because TvT is an excellent and dynamic matchup. Protoss is in a great spot design-wise too. PvP has never been more interesting. TvP is problematic because a maxed-out protoss army is very dense, and generally has enough disruptors to force terran to retreat and take damage in the process. Just add +1 collision radius to the disruptor so lategame micro against deathballs is slightly less horrible. I think people would be amazed how much difference that would make in the matchup without affecting other matchups. I feel you have good points and unless we're overlooking some things, it seems like this could be a really good change. Going even further, if Zerg can get Hydras earlier, then we can nerf Queen/Spores since they are no longer the only AA. Making Hydras as AA would make things more interesting as it would take Larvae up too, whereas Queen/Spore you only lose a few Larvae for Spores. I was surprised that Ravager didn't need Lair tech, when I first tried Zerg recently. I always thought it was Lair tech (even though I know Ravager rush exists). Being less limiting to map design and build orders (Protoss can Forge FE again!) are big plusses. It's just weird to me that you can get both Roach and its evolution at the same tech level. I mean it was like that with Hydra+Lurker in BW I guess, it feels Zergy, but I think having Ravager/Lurker tech be T2 while Roach/Hydra is T1 could be cool. It's more weird with Ravager being at T1 because you don't need a Ravager Den. Lurker Den is at least an additional tech building. Also someone mentioned, what if Bile only takes down 1 FF at a time, and can't take down multiple FF if they're overlapping? I think it could be a small but good change, but imagine what if you could protect a canon or unit with a FF as well? It probably won't be enough to make FFEs work against Ravager rushes though. | ||
|
Decendos
Germany1324 Posts
On September 11 2020 17:12 darklycid wrote: Yeah yeah it's only reynor and serral, meanwhie the zergs that are out did things like overdrone heavily vs commited adept attacks and stay on hydra lurker viper vs mass carrier ht, guess what if you do so obvious mistakes Zerg is not too strong. The problem lies within the races strenghts and tools at the level reynor/serral/dark/rogue are playing. There is literally 0 indicator that pvz is zerg favored after last balance patch with nerfs to zerg and buffs to toss. It's simply to early and recent tournaments show pretty balanced see Gsl this season or EU qualifiers. Other than that it's just too early. If anything pvt looks bad... | ||
|
darklycid
1490 Posts
On September 11 2020 19:39 Decendos wrote: There is literally 0 indicator that pvz is zerg favored after last balance patch with nerfs to zerg and buffs to toss. It's simply to early and recent tournaments show pretty balanced see Gsl this season or EU qualifiers. Other than that it's just too early. If anything pvt looks bad... Ah yes gsl with the whopping 8-1 ZvP (also gsl since last patch is a way too low sample size fwiw). I agree that pvt looks bad once it comes to the disruptor blink dt phase and toss gets to stabilize, but from what i've seen in wcs so far pvz doesn't look imbalanced with Zergs playing really suboptimal, which even 2019 could be the case where noone would think pvz isn't zerg favored (even tho noone would be so dumb to go hydra lurker viper vs skytoss in 2019  ) | ||
|
Decendos
Germany1324 Posts
On September 11 2020 20:44 darklycid wrote: Ah yes gsl with the whopping 8-1 ZvP (also gsl since last patch is a way too low sample size fwiw). I agree that pvt looks bad once it comes to the disruptor blink dt phase and toss gets to stabilize, but from what i've seen in wcs so far pvz doesn't look imbalanced with Zergs playing really suboptimal, which even 2019 could be the case where noone would think pvz isn't zerg favored (even tho noone would be so dumb to go hydra lurker viper vs skytoss in 2019 )Yeah way too small sample size and only 5 zergs qualifying so including qualifiers GSL its definetly even matched. I think the game is in a pretty great spot now balancewise except the mentioned lategame in PvT. I enjoy the different strats in every MU (some need some buffs for all races but hey blizz is getting there seeing voidbuffs etc.). | ||
|
Lexender
Mexico2577 Posts
On September 11 2020 03:55 Decendos wrote: Really? One week as source? Guess next week will look completely different with the strong performance of zerg players in EU dreamhack qualifier. + Show Spoiler + all zergs out except the two best players in the world... You can take 2 minutes to check the previous lists to see its a very steady trend, terran hasn't had a positive WR for months. TvZ varies a bit but PvT roams around 55-54%. | ||
|
darklycid
1490 Posts
On September 11 2020 21:20 Decendos wrote: Yeah way too small sample size and only 5 zergs qualifying so including qualifiers GSL its definetly even matched. I think the game is in a pretty great spot now balancewise except the mentioned lategame in PvT. I enjoy the different strats in every MU (some need some buffs for all races but hey blizz is getting there seeing voidbuffs etc.). I mean i disagree pretty heavily there on current PvZ but w/e. I don't think you can take Zerg in Code S as a good point for your arguments when even 2019 Zergs didn't do too hot in kr outside of the top ones (e.g. season 3 also had only 8 zergs qualified etc.), and i don't think u wanna argue for pvz being balanced in 2019 | ||
|
Decendos
Germany1324 Posts
On September 11 2020 21:58 darklycid wrote: I mean i disagree pretty heavily there on current PvZ but w/e. I don't think you can take Zerg in Code S as a good point for your arguments when even 2019 Zergs didn't do too hot in kr outside of the top ones (e.g. season 3 also had only 8 zergs qualified etc.), and i don't think u wanna argue for pvz being balanced in 2019 no one talking about 2019, reading helps ;-) i am just talking last 1-2 months after patches - who cares about before, the patches are live now, thats all that matters, we just have to see how patch will go and already you see a clear trend of pvz being more than fine for toss: http://aligulac.com/misc/balance/ from 45% in january to 51% in august. so when we look back in 1-2 months PvZ will be more than fine for toss ;-) | ||
|
darklycid
1490 Posts
On September 11 2020 23:12 Decendos wrote: no one talking about 2019, reading helps ;-) i am just talking last 1-2 months after patches - who cares about before, the patches are live now, thats all that matters, we just have to see how patch will go and already you see a clear trend of pvz being more than fine for toss: http://aligulac.com/misc/balance/ from 45% in january to 51% in august. so when we look back in 1-2 months PvZ will be more than fine for toss ;-) I wouldn't call out reading comprehension if my own was bad, i was comparing current amount of kr zergs in gsl with 2019 season 3 which isn't much different even tho zerg was veeery good late 2019  Ofc recently pvz numbers wise seems to be getting better but at the end mostly Zergs win bc at the tip top lvl Zerg has the tools and mechanics available to just not lose if played righ, also the state of the mu isn't that great with alot still hanging on adept shenaigans or the Zerg fucking up. | ||
|
skdsk
128 Posts
Also please fix Viking, It became most shitty anti-air in entire game, they literally lose to every unit they are supposed to counter. Its only role became to kill Colossus.. | ||
|
Xamo
Spain614 Posts
| ||
|
Yoshi Kirishima
United States9392 Posts
On September 11 2020 23:51 skdsk wrote: Another problem is late game terran gas dump, this was literally always a problem except in hots Raven meta. Terrans literally have no gas dump unit, both protoss and zerg can easily dump gas into strong unit. Rebalancing some terran units cost might be worth a shot. Or making irrelevant units relevant for example maybe a late game upgrade for reapers. Also please fix Viking, It became most shitty anti-air in entire game, they literally lose to every unit they are supposed to counter. Its only role became to kill Colossus.. This... it feels really bad not having an actual gas sink like the other races do. Blizzard gutted the original Raven too hard instead of reworking it to scale less oppressively lategame. (Limiting the amount of projectiles a single PDD can shoot down to ~3 a second so the opponent can still do steady damage, so you can't 100% block out projectiles without dumping all your energy in one position, in which case the opponent can re-engage outside of that area. And changing HSM to not do as crazy splash, while still being a single target zoning tool that can be used against things like Sieged Tanks/Deployed WPs similar to Interference Matrix. You could also re-increase the time HSM takes before locking on, or even increase Raven supply to 3). The other races, if you get a ton of gas, you could potentially dump it all into gas heavy, powerful spellcasters. Of course, your army may not be well balanced and it may be difficult to control, but the option and potential is there. The option and potential is missing for Terran because Blizzard overreacted and gutted the Raven now (why did Blizzard think it has to be a unit you should only get 1-2 of?? What other unit besides Mothership is designed like that?? Zerg is allowed to make 30 Infestors/Vipers/Queens, Protoss can get 20 HTs/Sentries. But I guess it's not OK to make more than 2 Ravens?). Because there is no powerful gas sink unit, it takes away much of the fun from the econ game too. There is less incentive to mass expand to get a high gas income to overpower the enemy. In BW, having more bases meant you mined minerals quicker. In SC2, you don't really have that, but you DO have econ scaling with gas, since you need more bases to have a higher gas income. And gas units tend to be strong. Terran doesn't have a powerful unit that costs more gas than minerals though now... it makes things feel incomplete  . Do they just really not want Terran to have spellcasters or something? Ghosts and Ravens are both weird enough in that their spells only work on certain unit tags... before with the old Raven it was OK, but now you have 2 niche spellcasters whose use really depends on the MU. (Ghosts are great TvP, good TvZ, rare in TvT, Ravens are now rare TvZ, good TvP, great TvT). Even in BW, the Science Vessel was a powerful gas sink and making 10 of them was not uncommon. I guess the new/current balance team just really hated the Raven some reason (or it was a overreaction because they couldn't think of the adjustment to PDD/HSM I proposed). | ||
|
hiroshOne
Poland410 Posts
| ||
|
skdsk
128 Posts
On September 15 2020 23:24 hiroshOne wrote: U can always go mass Raven for Mass Disable ;-D Thats true, new meta seems to be making like 10 ravens, and disabling every power tech unit (colosus, siegetank, disruptor, etc, etc) | ||
|
Yoshi Kirishima
United States9392 Posts
And of course it's great TvT. I'm just not sure I like the design of it in that MU, because part of what makes LotV great is having stronger defense, and better opportunities to harass/pressure. Units like Disruptor, Liberator, Tanks, and to some degree Lurkers and Ravagers serve both of these roles. Having stronger defender advantage discourages and makes it harder for you to do a game ending push when you only have a small lead. This means that games can allow for comebacks and will require a lot more fighting and tactics before someone can end the game. This was a big part of why BW is great to play and watch, because things don't end suddenly as much as SC2 did in WoL/HotS. It is also a reason why TvZ has been a great MU in SC2, and TvT has been the best mirror MU throughout the years. Better harass options and more opportunities to pressure allows for more skirmishes around the map while the core areas are still being defended and both players can remain stable. Interference Matrix contradicts this a bit however. While I think it's overall fine despite how strong it is in TvT, just because defender advantage has always been very strong in TvT, it does feel a little lame to just have a bunch of Ravens fly in and disable your tanks. It feels a lot more exciting to have to drop marines over the tanks to get them to splash themselves, or win an air battle and zone them out with Liberators or such. When going back to classic TvT matches in WoL/HotS, those games easily went long and had lots of chaotic battles all over, while remaining mostly stable because of strong defenders advantage. However the Raven now allows you to break tanklines much easier and possibly end the game suddenly. I don't really like that, I feel there are enough ways to break tanklines in LotV (drops, liberators, BCs, buffed landed vikings, speed banshees, marauders not having to worry about PDD now, etc.) Interference Matrix is OK in most situations where you are just disabling a few units, but mass disable feels like bad design because there isn't really counterplay to it other than "don't get disabled". I mean, maybe you can EMP the Ravens, but I'm not sure that's really worth it. HSM performed a similar role but was less effective vs tanklines, especially early and mid game. And the counterplay was to just take the L and move back temporarily and resiege. Disabled tanks can't move though, and the only interesting micro you can do to dodge it is to pick up a unit with a Medivac. In general, HSM was interesting and more dynamic as a zoning tool because you could take the hit to continue to do damage in a fight, or try to preserve the unit longer by having it back out so the HSM doesn't lock on, then return to the fight late. Disable is all or nothing, and it's easy to perform. I think TvT is still fine as mass Ravens is still somewhat costly and commital, but I think Interference Matrix isn't the best spell design. | ||
| ||
Alpha X Event
Sneak Peek! #2
FuturE vs NinaLIVE!
Ryan vs TBD
Namshar vs TBD
[ Submit Event ] |
|
StarCraft 2 PiGStarcraft621 Heroes of the StormViBE200 NeuroSwarm  184DisKSc2  178Nathanias135 UpATree  127Nina 115-ZergGirl 114Forgg! 53ROOTCatZ 43Mackintac 29JuggernautJason 0Counter-Strike: Global Offensive Super Smash Bros Other Games summit1g11843 Destiny4899 Day[9].tv3123 ToD600 MaximusBlack375 Mew2King229 Hui .176 Trikslyr120 kaitlyn80 NarutO  73ZombieGrub56 NonY14 Organizations Counter-Strike: Global Offensive Other Games StarCraft 2 Other Games StarCraft: Brood War StarCraft 2 |
|
Alpha X Event
Armani vs Stats
Hurricane vs Innovation
Stats vs Innovation
GSL
TY vs Dream
Armani vs Zoun
WardiTV European League
ITaX Trovo Weekly
Stats vs RagnaroK
INnoVation vs Rogue
Bald Guy Classic
ThinkQuick showmatch se…
trutaCz vs Sziky
Aegyo vs TBD
Alpha Pro Series
Vanya vs Vindicta
MaxPax vs Future
ITaX Super Series
PartinG vs Bunny
RagnaroK vs TY
WardiTV European League
DnS vs Harstem
Kas vs Denver
OSC
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
